Discourse MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return format ('Returns communities with confidence scores and engagement metrics'), which helps the agent understand what to expect from the output despite no output schema being provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear usage rules and output information. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse and understand.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides excellent purpose clarity, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. While it doesn't explain all parameter interactions or edge cases, it gives the agent enough information to use the tool correctly, especially with the comprehensive schema descriptions available.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal additional semantic context by briefly explaining the 'query' and 'similar_to' parameters, but doesn't provide meaningful information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Discover', 'find') and resources ('Discourse forum communities'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'discourse_search' (which appears to be a general search) by focusing specifically on community discovery through semantic search or similarity matching.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter ('Use 'query' for semantic text search... or 'similar_to' to find communities similar to a known one'), includes a clear exclusion rule ('Provide exactly one of 'query' or 'similar_to''), and distinguishes this community-focused search from other sibling tools that search different entities like topics or posts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.